Brits blame both Biden & Trump for the Afghan turmoil – Mail poll – politicalbetting.com

another_richard said:

Sandpit said:

JosiasJessop said:

Japanese GP in October cancelled due to increasing Covid cases.

That’s no surprise. Probably replaced by a second race in the USA, either another at COTA, or perhaps Indianapolis.

The USA might be in a very bad covid situation in October.

That’s unlikely to bother Texas much, nor Indiana. They’ll tell the crowd not to come if they feel sick.

Contrast with New York, who have just started demanding vaccination certificates from anyone entering any indoor public space.

Scott_xP said:

"The PM has repeatedly and consistently failed to honour what he said to become Prime Minister to Veterans in this country. I have told him this to his face repeatedly - it had no effect, and so I will now do it in public"

@JohnnyMercerUK revealing what he hopes to say later... https://twitter.com/JohnnyMercerUK/status/1427888568945553413

Why should veterans get any different from everyone else?

Nigelb said:

Proof of principle for the inertial confinement method for fusion:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-58252784

I don't think this is quite accurate:
Reaching ignition means getting a fusion yield that's greater than the 1.9 MJ put in by the laser...
While there was no net energy gain, nuclear 'ignition' was actually achieved. That is a very significant step.

Laser / ICF fusion is great for research (especially into nuclear weapons), but I don't think it's the way forward for power from nuclear fusion.

another_richard said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

another_richard said:

RochdalePioneers said:

another_richard said:

RochdalePioneers said:

Scott_xP said:

Pushed on R4, Priti Patel appears to suggest Afghan refugees who reach the UK by boat won’t get special treatment. ‘They will claim asylum as other people claim asylum’ she says.
https://twitter.com/benrileysmith/status/1427894180249055237

On arrival Afghan refugees will be escorted to Stansted and then flown to our new offshore processing centre at Bagram AFB. Their new Taliban camp hosts will keep them safe from the evil Taliban. "It's been a big success" said a smirking Priti Patel yesterday, "the camp has more capacity so big hearted Britain is prepared to take another 50,000 refugees."

Why bother doing that when you've told us that Scotland will take them all.

When do we get Nicola's announcement confirming that ?

Give her the power to do so then. Scotland has an excellent migration policy (https://www.gov.scot/publications/migration-helping-scotland-prosper/) but no powers to implement it as it isn't a devolved matter.

Amazing how virtue signalling so quickly turns into "I'd like to help but I'm sorry I'm not allowed".

Like all the celebs who say they will house refugees in their own homes.....

And also a few politicians.

Nicola Sturgeon and Yvette Cooper among them.

In fact it should be easier for politicians to personally house refugees - they tend to own multiple houses.

Hmmm, Harmsworth or the Balls and Murrell households? Hmmm.

Scott_xP said:

When MPs meet in special session of the Commons at 0930 this morning, motion before them is “That this House has considered the situation in Afghanistan.”
Pretty much sums up Britain’s impotence in the current crisis. Maybe they should just leave it there and go back on holiday.
https://twitter.com/afneil/status/1427896249177493504

Will be a fest of hand-wringing and 'if only' and 'coulda shoulda woulda'. The only honest contribution will be any MP who admits we should never have gone there in the first place, preferably coming from someone who said as much at the time (although repentance is always better than HY-head-in-the-sandism).

algarkirk said:

Heathener said:

ping said:

end up dumping them & their problems on Stoke on Trent etc?

There's a very funny article about the 50 worst places to live in England as voted for by denizens. Scroll down to the top 10 worst places and enjoy the comments.

https://www.ilivehere.co.uk/top-50-worst-places-to-live-in-england-2021

Despite being in the north nowhere in Cumbria even makes the top 50. A shameful lack of effort on the part of Maryport, Workington, Barrow, Carlisle, Millom, Whitehaven, Dalton etc.

Very poor effort from Lancashire as well.

And how Rotherham is as high as 34 (with ten other Yorkshire towns below it) is a mystery.

Key table from Government Expenditure and Revenue Scotland report shows the notional deficit for Scotland of 22.4% of GDP - up 13.6pts in a year. UK deficit up 11.6pts to 14.2% of GDP.

https://twitter.com/ChrisMusson/status/1427914601514033152?s=20

Sandpit said:

RochdalePioneers said:

Sandpit said:

Scott_xP said:

Sandpit said:

“By boat” being the key words there.

Indeed. That was the point of the question.

She has to maintain her "no refugees by boat" stance to keep the Faragists at bay, while simultaneously 'welcoming' thousands of Afghans.

Unless they arrive by boat...

Yes, because the boats are:

1. Killing people
2. Enabling people smugglers
3. Acting as a draw for people to make long journeys
4. Mostly arriving from a G7, Nato and EU country, which is perfectly safe.
5. Robbing the arrivals of their savings
6. Encouraging economic migration under the guise of asylum.

The UK is taking thousands of Afghan refugees, but will be bringing them into the country from Afghanistan and surrounding areas. Same policy as under Cameron and other governments.

We absolutely won't be. The right have weaponised human suffering. There are no refugees remember. They've been told that they have to claim asylum in the first safe country (they don't), that they're here to take all the jobs (when they can't work) and the benefits (which they can't claim) and now that man with beard will blow us up.

The good Brexit Tory voters in the red wall and eastern England are not going to open their communities to accept Afghan refugees. They voted Brexit and Tory to stop such things happening. Which is why that smirking monster Patel is so determined to stop future Patels coming there.

Sorry, but that’s total and utter bollocks.

The UK are and will be taking thousands of refugees from Afghanistan, which is the correct thing to do.

And yet we are not. https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/opendemocracyuk/uk-government-rejected-more-32000-afghan-asylum-seekers/

32,000 over 20 years of occupation is a trickle, with half refused included women and children. We're bringing over people we employed and very little else. England doesn't want refugees - read the papers. See the votes.

Very pointed intervention from Mrs May, there

another_richard said:

RochdalePioneers said:

another_richard said:

RochdalePioneers said:

Scott_xP said:

Pushed on R4, Priti Patel appears to suggest Afghan refugees who reach the UK by boat won’t get special treatment. ‘They will claim asylum as other people claim asylum’ she says.
https://twitter.com/benrileysmith/status/1427894180249055237

On arrival Afghan refugees will be escorted to Stansted and then flown to our new offshore processing centre at Bagram AFB. Their new Taliban camp hosts will keep them safe from the evil Taliban. "It's been a big success" said a smirking Priti Patel yesterday, "the camp has more capacity so big hearted Britain is prepared to take another 50,000 refugees."

Why bother doing that when you've told us that Scotland will take them all.

When do we get Nicola's announcement confirming that ?

Give her the power to do so then. Scotland has an excellent migration policy (https://www.gov.scot/publications/migration-helping-scotland-prosper/) but no powers to implement it as it isn't a devolved matter.

Amazing how virtue signalling so quickly turns into "I'd like to help but I'm sorry I'm not allowed".

"Here is what we want to do. Please give us the powers"
"No. Oh look, you are doing nothing but virtue signal"

DecrepiterJohnL said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Jessop, a shame, but not entirely unexpected.

Lewis Hamilton has won the Japanese Grand Prix six times so its cancellation is probably not to his advantage.

It also can be a lottery with extreme weather conditions.
If it's replaced by an extra race at COTA, he'll be delighted.

RochdalePioneers said:

Sandpit said:

RochdalePioneers said:

Sandpit said:

Scott_xP said:

Sandpit said:

“By boat” being the key words there.

Indeed. That was the point of the question.

She has to maintain her "no refugees by boat" stance to keep the Faragists at bay, while simultaneously 'welcoming' thousands of Afghans.

Unless they arrive by boat...

Yes, because the boats are:

1. Killing people
2. Enabling people smugglers
3. Acting as a draw for people to make long journeys
4. Mostly arriving from a G7, Nato and EU country, which is perfectly safe.
5. Robbing the arrivals of their savings
6. Encouraging economic migration under the guise of asylum.

The UK is taking thousands of Afghan refugees, but will be bringing them into the country from Afghanistan and surrounding areas. Same policy as under Cameron and other governments.

We absolutely won't be. The right have weaponised human suffering. There are no refugees remember. They've been told that they have to claim asylum in the first safe country (they don't), that they're here to take all the jobs (when they can't work) and the benefits (which they can't claim) and now that man with beard will blow us up.

The good Brexit Tory voters in the red wall and eastern England are not going to open their communities to accept Afghan refugees. They voted Brexit and Tory to stop such things happening. Which is why that smirking monster Patel is so determined to stop future Patels coming there.

Sorry, but that’s total and utter bollocks.

The UK are and will be taking thousands of refugees from Afghanistan, which is the correct thing to do.

And yet we are not. https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/opendemocracyuk/uk-government-rejected-more-32000-afghan-asylum-seekers/

32,000 over 20 years of occupation is a trickle, with half refused included women and children. We're bringing over people we employed and very little else. England doesn't want refugees - read the papers. See the votes.

In view of Macron's further right attitude to this issue than Patel, and the silence from pro EU posters on this forum can you comment on the shocking attitude of the EU to date

IanB2 said:

Scott_xP said:

"The PM has repeatedly and consistently failed to honour what he said to become Prime Minister to Veterans in this country. I have told him this to his face repeatedly - it had no effect, and so I will now do it in public"

@JohnnyMercerUK revealing what he hopes to say later... https://twitter.com/JohnnyMercerUK/status/1427888568945553413

Why should veterans get any different from everyone else?

There is one good reason for them to get different treatment, and that is the distinctive nature of military wounds, both physical and mental, and the wider issues such as a distinctive understanding of the situation of a serving soldier, sailor or RAF person.

Yet MoD would seem not to agree, at least insofar as the specialist hospitals such as Haslar were closed down by MoD. AIUI the best one can hope for is a MoD specialist unit in a NHS hospital. No idea if this is considered appropriate by the medical profession or not.

IshmaelZ said:

RochdalePioneers said:

Sandpit said:

RochdalePioneers said:

Sandpit said:

Scott_xP said:

Sandpit said:

“By boat” being the key words there.

Indeed. That was the point of the question.

She has to maintain her "no refugees by boat" stance to keep the Faragists at bay, while simultaneously 'welcoming' thousands of Afghans.

Unless they arrive by boat...

Yes, because the boats are:

1. Killing people
2. Enabling people smugglers
3. Acting as a draw for people to make long journeys
4. Mostly arriving from a G7, Nato and EU country, which is perfectly safe.
5. Robbing the arrivals of their savings
6. Encouraging economic migration under the guise of asylum.

The UK is taking thousands of Afghan refugees, but will be bringing them into the country from Afghanistan and surrounding areas. Same policy as under Cameron and other governments.

We absolutely won't be. The right have weaponised human suffering. There are no refugees remember. They've been told that they have to claim asylum in the first safe country (they don't), that they're here to take all the jobs (when they can't work) and the benefits (which they can't claim) and now that man with beard will blow us up.

The good Brexit Tory voters in the red wall and eastern England are not going to open their communities to accept Afghan refugees. They voted Brexit and Tory to stop such things happening. Which is why that smirking monster Patel is so determined to stop future Patels coming there.

Sorry, but that’s total and utter bollocks.

The UK are and will be taking thousands of refugees from Afghanistan, which is the correct thing to do.

And yet we are not. https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/opendemocracyuk/uk-government-rejected-more-32000-afghan-asylum-seekers/

32,000 over 20 years of occupation is a trickle, with half refused included women and children. We're bringing over people we employed and very little else. England doesn't want refugees - read the papers. See the votes.

You left England for Aberdeenshire to get away from the crowds, I believe?

No. I could have moved to many other parts of England for that.

Sandpit said:

another_richard said:

Sandpit said:

JosiasJessop said:

Japanese GP in October cancelled due to increasing Covid cases.

That’s no surprise. Probably replaced by a second race in the USA, either another at COTA, or perhaps Indianapolis.

The USA might be in a very bad covid situation in October.

That’s unlikely to bother Texas much, nor Indiana. They’ll tell the crowd not to come if they feel sick.

Contrast with New York, who have just started demanding vaccination certificates from anyone entering any indoor public space.

New York and New Jersey currently have the highest Covid fatality rates, but Florida and Texas have bigger outbreaks ongoing now.

This idea that seems to have taken hold that 'vaccines don't stop transmission' is one of the worst half truths of the entire pandemic.
Vaccine passports do two things.

i) They drive up vaccine uptake, the couple of people I know not bothering soon would if they needed it to live a normal life
ii) They ensure any venue that requires them has the highest possible immunity level within that venue. And these tend to be the places transmission is highest.

As an added bonus it sends the antivaxxers even more foaming at the mouth than they already are, and decrease costs for your health system.

paulyork64 said:

Sean_F said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Good morning, everyone.

Mr. B, in the Middle Ages, and ancient world, a general approach taken was that surrendering was best done immediately, or not at all.

General such as the Black Prince or Alexander the Great tended to be lenient to those who gave up, but if surrender was offered later then harsh terms at best were imposed (if not slaughter).

That being so, why would the Afghan army, apparently unable to operate its fancy US gear due to lack of support, fight an unwinnable war for the sake of the people who had just abandoned them, in exchange for certain death rather than potentially being able to keep on living?

And why didn't the US consider this?

The idea that one can surrender well after a fight has begun, and expect to have that surrender accepted is (a) very recent and (b) certainly not universally accepted.

As I understood it, until a practicable breach was made in your walls the besiegers would not expect a surrender. Once that was achieved if no surrender came and a costly storming was necessary then a massacre would ensue, and not just of the military.

I think was certainly the case during the napoleonic wars, eg in the peninsula.

That was the ethic, in the 18th and 19th centuries. It was accepted that, as a man of honour, a defending commander should attempt to stand a siege, up till the point that a practicable breach had been made. At that point, he ought to surrender, and his men could expect reasonable terms, so as to avoid the cost of stroming the town. But, if he refused to surrender, and the town was stormed, then the attackers were well within their rights to execute the defenders, and massacre the townsfolk, as at Badajoz and San Sebastian.

The laws of war were detailed. It was very bad conduct to accept a surrender upon terms, and then to breach those terms, as you were really putting everyone else in jeapordy by doing so. That is what made Nelson's conduct at Naples so egregious. The Republicans in Naples negotiated a surrender that would enable them to be transported by the Royal Navy to France. Nelson was not party to the negotiations, and repudiated the terms on arrival at the city. He was entitled to repudiate an agreement made by a deputy, but according to the rules, he ought to have restored them to the fortifications which they had been defending, with ammunition and food. Instead, he handed them over to Ferdinand and Maria Carolina for punishment.

IanB2 said:

Scott_xP said:

When MPs meet in special session of the Commons at 0930 this morning, motion before them is “That this House has considered the situation in Afghanistan.”
Pretty much sums up Britain’s impotence in the current crisis. Maybe they should just leave it there and go back on holiday.
https://twitter.com/afneil/status/1427896249177493504

Will be a fest of hand-wringing and 'if only' and 'coulda shoulda woulda'. The only honest contribution will be any MP who admits we should never have gone there in the first place, preferably coming from someone who said as much at the time (although repentance is always better than HY-head-in-the-sandism).

It looked like a waste of British lives and money over a decade ago.

But we kept being told by the 'experts' that things were improving and it needed only a little more time {insert photo of westernised Kabulis to 'prove it'}.

turbotubbs said:

StuartDickson said:

Heathener said:

rcs1000 said:

This is an excellent (short) tweet thread looking at the efficacy of Pfizer against Delta is Israel, and Simpson's paradox: https://twitter.com/CT_Bergstrom/status/1427767356600688646

Edit to add, this is the piece that the tweet thread is based: https://www.covid-datascience.com/post/israeli-data-how-can-efficacy-vs-severe-disease-be-strong-when-60-of-hospitalized-are-vaccinated

It's really just a play with the word 'efficacy.'

The basic fact is that Pfizer isn't stemming Delta as effectively on most pandemic measurements as it did with preceding variants. It is also the case that herd immunity is now very unlikely to be achieved.

The rest is a case of watching the data: growing case numbers, serious illness, hospitalisations and deaths ... some of whom will have been double jabbed with Pfizer. In all of those instances more will be affected than would have been the case with preceding variants.

A much simpler way of putting this is that we're heading for trouble this autumn / winter. I wish it weren't so and I wish I could take the Peter Pan approach that some stridently desire. The evidence sadly makes that impossible.

As someone who’s double-Pfizered, may I just say thank you for ruining my day Heathener.

I wouldn't worry - chances are even if you contract covid now, you will have a bad few days at most, and almost certainly won'y need hospital care. @Heathener has a rather doom filled outlook. If he/she was commenting at this time last year, they would have been proven absolutely correct. Now over 90% of adults have some immunity. Well in the UK at least, not sure where you are...

I’m doubled jabbed with AZ and have got Covid. Diagnosed yesterday. Caught it from the wife. Feel fine now. I’m not too fussed. The jabs work.

Carnyx said:

IanB2 said:

Scott_xP said:

"The PM has repeatedly and consistently failed to honour what he said to become Prime Minister to Veterans in this country. I have told him this to his face repeatedly - it had no effect, and so I will now do it in public"

@JohnnyMercerUK revealing what he hopes to say later... https://twitter.com/JohnnyMercerUK/status/1427888568945553413

Why should veterans get any different from everyone else?

There is one good reason for them to get different treatment, and that is the distinctive nature of military wounds, both physical and mental, and the wider issues such as a distinctive understanding of the situation of a serving soldier, sailor or RAF person.

Yet MoD would seem not to agree, at least insofar as the specialist hospitals such as Haslar were closed down by MoD. AIUI the best one can hope for is a MoD specialist unit in a NHS hospital. No idea if this is considered appropriate by the medical profession or not.

You misunderstand; I meant, not that, but the even more outlandish expectation that the PM's promises to anyone ever have any meaning.

Quite an appalling, halting, meandering, unconvincing, staccato performance by PM Johnson opening Commons debate. Nobody could accuse him of rising to the occasion.

https://twitter.com/afneil/status/1427917524402900995?s=20

Maybe it’s the shock of so many MPs in back in the chamber, but the Commons is particularly febrile. Tory benches in particular are giving Boris Johnson a very hard time, PM struggling to keep his head above water.
https://twitter.com/SebastianEPayne/status/1427918267243540482?s=20

HYUFD said:

IanB2 said:

Scott_xP said:

When MPs meet in special session of the Commons at 0930 this morning, motion before them is “That this House has considered the situation in Afghanistan.”
Pretty much sums up Britain’s impotence in the current crisis. Maybe they should just leave it there and go back on holiday.
https://twitter.com/afneil/status/1427896249177493504

Will be a fest of hand-wringing and 'if only' and 'coulda shoulda woulda'. The only honest contribution will be any MP who admits we should never have gone there in the first place, preferably coming from someone who said as much at the time (although repentance is always better than HY-head-in-the-sandism).

You expecting a contribution from Corbyn then?

Had we not gone in Bin Laden would of course still be alive, Al Qaeda still in Afghanistan with jihadi training camps and the Taliban would never have lost power in the first place

You really should go watch that film The Outpost. A pro-veteran film that nevertheless brings home the utter futility and stupidity of it all.

Taz said:

turbotubbs said:

StuartDickson said:

Heathener said:

rcs1000 said:

This is an excellent (short) tweet thread looking at the efficacy of Pfizer against Delta is Israel, and Simpson's paradox: https://twitter.com/CT_Bergstrom/status/1427767356600688646

Edit to add, this is the piece that the tweet thread is based: https://www.covid-datascience.com/post/israeli-data-how-can-efficacy-vs-severe-disease-be-strong-when-60-of-hospitalized-are-vaccinated

It's really just a play with the word 'efficacy.'

The basic fact is that Pfizer isn't stemming Delta as effectively on most pandemic measurements as it did with preceding variants. It is also the case that herd immunity is now very unlikely to be achieved.

The rest is a case of watching the data: growing case numbers, serious illness, hospitalisations and deaths ... some of whom will have been double jabbed with Pfizer. In all of those instances more will be affected than would have been the case with preceding variants.

A much simpler way of putting this is that we're heading for trouble this autumn / winter. I wish it weren't so and I wish I could take the Peter Pan approach that some stridently desire. The evidence sadly makes that impossible.

As someone who’s double-Pfizered, may I just say thank you for ruining my day Heathener.

I wouldn't worry - chances are even if you contract covid now, you will have a bad few days at most, and almost certainly won'y need hospital care. @Heathener has a rather doom filled outlook. If he/she was commenting at this time last year, they would have been proven absolutely correct. Now over 90% of adults have some immunity. Well in the UK at least, not sure where you are...

I’m doubled jabbed with AZ and have got Covid. Diagnosed yesterday. Caught it from the wife. Feel fine now. I’m not too fussed. The jabs work.

Hope it’s not too bad for you.

Yes, the jabs work. It’s very much a half-truth to say they don’t stop transmission, what they are unquestionably doing is keeping people out of hospitals.

Big_G_NorthWales said:

RochdalePioneers said:

Sandpit said:

RochdalePioneers said:

Sandpit said:

Scott_xP said:

Sandpit said:

“By boat” being the key words there.

Indeed. That was the point of the question.

She has to maintain her "no refugees by boat" stance to keep the Faragists at bay, while simultaneously 'welcoming' thousands of Afghans.

Unless they arrive by boat...

Yes, because the boats are:

1. Killing people
2. Enabling people smugglers
3. Acting as a draw for people to make long journeys
4. Mostly arriving from a G7, Nato and EU country, which is perfectly safe.
5. Robbing the arrivals of their savings
6. Encouraging economic migration under the guise of asylum.

The UK is taking thousands of Afghan refugees, but will be bringing them into the country from Afghanistan and surrounding areas. Same policy as under Cameron and other governments.

We absolutely won't be. The right have weaponised human suffering. There are no refugees remember. They've been told that they have to claim asylum in the first safe country (they don't), that they're here to take all the jobs (when they can't work) and the benefits (which they can't claim) and now that man with beard will blow us up.

The good Brexit Tory voters in the red wall and eastern England are not going to open their communities to accept Afghan refugees. They voted Brexit and Tory to stop such things happening. Which is why that smirking monster Patel is so determined to stop future Patels coming there.

Sorry, but that’s total and utter bollocks.

The UK are and will be taking thousands of refugees from Afghanistan, which is the correct thing to do.

And yet we are not. https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/opendemocracyuk/uk-government-rejected-more-32000-afghan-asylum-seekers/

32,000 over 20 years of occupation is a trickle, with half refused included women and children. We're bringing over people we employed and very little else. England doesn't want refugees - read the papers. See the votes.

In view of Macron's further right attitude to this issue than Patel, and the silence from pro EU posters on this forum can you comment on the shocking attitude of the EU to date

One might not unreasonably argue that it's (mostly) the US and UK's mess....

Shrugs and blank looks greet Sir Keir Starmer's Wolverhampton appearance


https://www.expressandstar.com/news/local-hubs/wolverhampton/2021/08/17/shrugs-and-blank-looks-greet-sir-keirs-city-appearance/

IanB2 said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

RochdalePioneers said:

Sandpit said:

RochdalePioneers said:

Sandpit said:

Scott_xP said:

Sandpit said:

“By boat” being the key words there.

Indeed. That was the point of the question.

She has to maintain her "no refugees by boat" stance to keep the Faragists at bay, while simultaneously 'welcoming' thousands of Afghans.

Unless they arrive by boat...

Yes, because the boats are:

1. Killing people
2. Enabling people smugglers
3. Acting as a draw for people to make long journeys
4. Mostly arriving from a G7, Nato and EU country, which is perfectly safe.
5. Robbing the arrivals of their savings
6. Encouraging economic migration under the guise of asylum.

The UK is taking thousands of Afghan refugees, but will be bringing them into the country from Afghanistan and surrounding areas. Same policy as under Cameron and other governments.

We absolutely won't be. The right have weaponised human suffering. There are no refugees remember. They've been told that they have to claim asylum in the first safe country (they don't), that they're here to take all the jobs (when they can't work) and the benefits (which they can't claim) and now that man with beard will blow us up.

The good Brexit Tory voters in the red wall and eastern England are not going to open their communities to accept Afghan refugees. They voted Brexit and Tory to stop such things happening. Which is why that smirking monster Patel is so determined to stop future Patels coming there.

Sorry, but that’s total and utter bollocks.

The UK are and will be taking thousands of refugees from Afghanistan, which is the correct thing to do.

And yet we are not. https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/opendemocracyuk/uk-government-rejected-more-32000-afghan-asylum-seekers/

32,000 over 20 years of occupation is a trickle, with half refused included women and children. We're bringing over people we employed and very little else. England doesn't want refugees - read the papers. See the votes.

In view of Macron's further right attitude to this issue than Patel, and the silence from pro EU posters on this forum can you comment on the shocking attitude of the EU to date

One might not unreasonably argue that it's (mostly) the US and UK's mess....

I am sorry that is just a pro EU cop out

Sandpit said:

Taz said:

turbotubbs said:

StuartDickson said:

Heathener said:

rcs1000 said:

This is an excellent (short) tweet thread looking at the efficacy of Pfizer against Delta is Israel, and Simpson's paradox: https://twitter.com/CT_Bergstrom/status/1427767356600688646

Edit to add, this is the piece that the tweet thread is based: https://www.covid-datascience.com/post/israeli-data-how-can-efficacy-vs-severe-disease-be-strong-when-60-of-hospitalized-are-vaccinated

It's really just a play with the word 'efficacy.'

The basic fact is that Pfizer isn't stemming Delta as effectively on most pandemic measurements as it did with preceding variants. It is also the case that herd immunity is now very unlikely to be achieved.

The rest is a case of watching the data: growing case numbers, serious illness, hospitalisations and deaths ... some of whom will have been double jabbed with Pfizer. In all of those instances more will be affected than would have been the case with preceding variants.

A much simpler way of putting this is that we're heading for trouble this autumn / winter. I wish it weren't so and I wish I could take the Peter Pan approach that some stridently desire. The evidence sadly makes that impossible.

As someone who’s double-Pfizered, may I just say thank you for ruining my day Heathener.

I wouldn't worry - chances are even if you contract covid now, you will have a bad few days at most, and almost certainly won'y need hospital care. @Heathener has a rather doom filled outlook. If he/she was commenting at this time last year, they would have been proven absolutely correct. Now over 90% of adults have some immunity. Well in the UK at least, not sure where you are...

I’m doubled jabbed with AZ and have got Covid. Diagnosed yesterday. Caught it from the wife. Feel fine now. I’m not too fussed. The jabs work.

Hope it’s not too bad for you.

Yes, the jabs work. It’s very much a half-truth to say they don’t stop transmission, what they are unquestionably doing is keeping people out of hospitals.

Thank you, it isn’t for me but my wife is having a harder time of it. I just ache all over and have lost my sense of taste and smell. My wife has a running nose and chesty cough too.

We are both working from home but she will be having a lie down later.

Yes, what I should have said is vaccines have broken the link between infection and hospitalisation and death.

IanB2 said:

Very pointed intervention from Mrs May, there

Outside of the Commons who I'd be particularly interested in hearing from about Afghanistan is Tony Blair.

CarlottaVance said:

IanB2 said:

Very pointed intervention from Mrs May, there

Mrs May is regularly better at putting Johnson on the spot than any of the Opposition.

"When did you first speak to Nato Sec Gen about assembling a coalition of the willing?"

"I spoke to him just the other day..."

That is the problem with parliamentary debates; it is so easy to avoid the question (or be an idiot by not understanding it) and there is no opportunity to follow up. It is a shame that the speaker can not intervene and insist that the actual question is answered.

There is also the issue of often having to ask 20 questions in one ask for which there is no way a minister can answer properly. There should be the opportunity to ask individual or closely related questions and then ask the next after that answer.

The chamber is useless for debate.

HYUFD said:

OldKingCole said:

HYUFD said:

IanB2 said:

Scott_xP said:

When MPs meet in special session of the Commons at 0930 this morning, motion before them is “That this House has considered the situation in Afghanistan.”
Pretty much sums up Britain’s impotence in the current crisis. Maybe they should just leave it there and go back on holiday.
https://twitter.com/afneil/status/1427896249177493504

Will be a fest of hand-wringing and 'if only' and 'coulda shoulda woulda'. The only honest contribution will be any MP who admits we should never have gone there in the first place, preferably coming from someone who said as much at the time (although repentance is always better than HY-head-in-the-sandism).

You expecting a contribution from Corbyn then?

Had we not gone in Bin Laden would of course still be alive, Al Qaeda still in Afghanistan with jihadi training camps and the Taliban would never have lost power in the first place

I was trying to think of who was in Parliament at the material time was, unlike IDS (among others) gung-ho for action. And of course, you're right!

And re Bin Laden, there's no 'of course' about it.

It was only the invasion which forced Bin Laden to flee Afghanistan to Pakistan where US special forces eventually found and killed him.

No invasion., Bin Laden would still be alive in the Afghan mountains plotting more 9/11s

Your hero just promised that we would stop Afghanistan becoming a breeding ground for terrorism. So it must clearly be possible without having to invade the place....

IanB2 said:

Carnyx said:

IanB2 said:

Scott_xP said:

"The PM has repeatedly and consistently failed to honour what he said to become Prime Minister to Veterans in this country. I have told him this to his face repeatedly - it had no effect, and so I will now do it in public"

@JohnnyMercerUK revealing what he hopes to say later... https://twitter.com/JohnnyMercerUK/status/1427888568945553413

Why should veterans get any different from everyone else?

There is one good reason for them to get different treatment, and that is the distinctive nature of military wounds, both physical and mental, and the wider issues such as a distinctive understanding of the situation of a serving soldier, sailor or RAF person.

Yet MoD would seem not to agree, at least insofar as the specialist hospitals such as Haslar were closed down by MoD. AIUI the best one can hope for is a MoD specialist unit in a NHS hospital. No idea if this is considered appropriate by the medical profession or not.

You misunderstand; I meant, not that, but the even more outlandish expectation that the PM's promises had any meaning.

Fair enough! I did misunderstand. Quite so. But it is a good general question in a country where the American approach has not been adopted (arguably less necessary in general, because of the existence of rather better social support systems). I'm not sure what the answer is, but undoubtedly special medical treatment is a potential issue. I've read accounts of poor treatment partly because the civilians didn't understand the wider background.

Interestingly it strikes me from the responses to that tweet that the news of the fall of Kabul won't be good for the psychological health of the veterans, anyway, or indeed their families (some bereaved). Nor might the PM's actions (or lack of).

Every single MP sitting in the House of Commons today knows that Boris Johnson is unfit to be Prime Minister. Every single one of them.

SouthamObserver said:

Every single MP sitting in the House of Commons today knows that Boris Johnson is unfit to be Prime Minister. Every single one of them.

Even Kier is showing him up by being more prime-ministerly, starting his speech by thanking all the MPs who have served out there.

"The Conservative Party chooses to have a leader incapable of taking important decisions and who is held in contempt by his peers around the West." https://www.newstatesman.com/comment/2021/08/why-tories-are-despair-over-boris-johnson-s-handling-afghanistan-crisis

another_richard said:

RochdalePioneers said:

another_richard said:

RochdalePioneers said:

another_richard said:

RochdalePioneers said:

Scott_xP said:

Pushed on R4, Priti Patel appears to suggest Afghan refugees who reach the UK by boat won’t get special treatment. ‘They will claim asylum as other people claim asylum’ she says.
https://twitter.com/benrileysmith/status/1427894180249055237

On arrival Afghan refugees will be escorted to Stansted and then flown to our new offshore processing centre at Bagram AFB. Their new Taliban camp hosts will keep them safe from the evil Taliban. "It's been a big success" said a smirking Priti Patel yesterday, "the camp has more capacity so big hearted Britain is prepared to take another 50,000 refugees."

Why bother doing that when you've told us that Scotland will take them all.

When do we get Nicola's announcement confirming that ?

Give her the power to do so then. Scotland has an excellent migration policy (https://www.gov.scot/publications/migration-helping-scotland-prosper/) but no powers to implement it as it isn't a devolved matter.

Amazing how virtue signalling so quickly turns into "I'd like to help but I'm sorry I'm not allowed".

"Here is what we want to do. Please give us the powers"
"No. Oh look, you are doing nothing but virtue signal"

We await Nicola's offer.

I already posted it https://www.gov.scot/publications/migration-helping-scotland-prosper/

Taz said:

Pulpstar said:

Taz said:

turbotubbs said:

StuartDickson said:

Heathener said:

rcs1000 said:

This is an excellent (short) tweet thread looking at the efficacy of Pfizer against Delta is Israel, and Simpson's paradox: https://twitter.com/CT_Bergstrom/status/1427767356600688646

Edit to add, this is the piece that the tweet thread is based: https://www.covid-datascience.com/post/israeli-data-how-can-efficacy-vs-severe-disease-be-strong-when-60-of-hospitalized-are-vaccinated

It's really just a play with the word 'efficacy.'

The basic fact is that Pfizer isn't stemming Delta as effectively on most pandemic measurements as it did with preceding variants. It is also the case that herd immunity is now very unlikely to be achieved.

The rest is a case of watching the data: growing case numbers, serious illness, hospitalisations and deaths ... some of whom will have been double jabbed with Pfizer. In all of those instances more will be affected than would have been the case with preceding variants.

A much simpler way of putting this is that we're heading for trouble this autumn / winter. I wish it weren't so and I wish I could take the Peter Pan approach that some stridently desire. The evidence sadly makes that impossible.

As someone who’s double-Pfizered, may I just say thank you for ruining my day Heathener.

I wouldn't worry - chances are even if you contract covid now, you will have a bad few days at most, and almost certainly won'y need hospital care. @Heathener has a rather doom filled outlook. If he/she was commenting at this time last year, they would have been proven absolutely correct. Now over 90% of adults have some immunity. Well in the UK at least, not sure where you are...

I’m doubled jabbed with AZ and have got Covid. Diagnosed yesterday. Caught it from the wife. Feel fine now. I’m not too fussed. The jabs work.

Sorry to hear & Good to hear
Is it worse than a normal cold or flu (for you) ?

Hope your wife is feeling OK !

Thank you.

My wife has a very chesty cough and a steaming nose and feels very tired and drained. It is like a bad cold for her.

For me I feel fine apart from a metallic taste in my mouth. The previius couple of days I felt like I’d been kicked black and blue. But today I don’t feel too bad.

Good to hear. An update - my mum spent about 5 days in hospital with a blood clot, she's out now and on thinners. It wasn't Covid, and the length of time from her jabs means I think it won't have been the vaccine either.
It was (imo) likely the ciggies which she has now quit after 50 odd years, hopefully for good >< !

SouthamObserver said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

IanB2 said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

RochdalePioneers said:

Sandpit said:

RochdalePioneers said:

Sandpit said:

Scott_xP said:

Sandpit said:

“By boat” being the key words there.

Indeed. That was the point of the question.

She has to maintain her "no refugees by boat" stance to keep the Faragists at bay, while simultaneously 'welcoming' thousands of Afghans.

Unless they arrive by boat...

Yes, because the boats are:

1. Killing people
2. Enabling people smugglers
3. Acting as a draw for people to make long journeys
4. Mostly arriving from a G7, Nato and EU country, which is perfectly safe.
5. Robbing the arrivals of their savings
6. Encouraging economic migration under the guise of asylum.

The UK is taking thousands of Afghan refugees, but will be bringing them into the country from Afghanistan and surrounding areas. Same policy as under Cameron and other governments.

We absolutely won't be. The right have weaponised human suffering. There are no refugees remember. They've been told that they have to claim asylum in the first safe country (they don't), that they're here to take all the jobs (when they can't work) and the benefits (which they can't claim) and now that man with beard will blow us up.

The good Brexit Tory voters in the red wall and eastern England are not going to open their communities to accept Afghan refugees. They voted Brexit and Tory to stop such things happening. Which is why that smirking monster Patel is so determined to stop future Patels coming there.

Sorry, but that’s total and utter bollocks.

The UK are and will be taking thousands of refugees from Afghanistan, which is the correct thing to do.

And yet we are not. https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/opendemocracyuk/uk-government-rejected-more-32000-afghan-asylum-seekers/

32,000 over 20 years of occupation is a trickle, with half refused included women and children. We're bringing over people we employed and very little else. England doesn't want refugees - read the papers. See the votes.

In view of Macron's further right attitude to this issue than Patel, and the silence from pro EU posters on this forum can you comment on the shocking attitude of the EU to date

One might not unreasonably argue that it's (mostly) the US and UK's mess....

I am sorry that is just a pro EU cop out

Do you speak French, Mr G?

Oui

IanB2 said:

HYUFD said:

OldKingCole said:

HYUFD said:

IanB2 said:

Scott_xP said:

When MPs meet in special session of the Commons at 0930 this morning, motion before them is “That this House has considered the situation in Afghanistan.”
Pretty much sums up Britain’s impotence in the current crisis. Maybe they should just leave it there and go back on holiday.
https://twitter.com/afneil/status/1427896249177493504

Will be a fest of hand-wringing and 'if only' and 'coulda shoulda woulda'. The only honest contribution will be any MP who admits we should never have gone there in the first place, preferably coming from someone who said as much at the time (although repentance is always better than HY-head-in-the-sandism).

You expecting a contribution from Corbyn then?

Had we not gone in Bin Laden would of course still be alive, Al Qaeda still in Afghanistan with jihadi training camps and the Taliban would never have lost power in the first place

I was trying to think of who was in Parliament at the material time was, unlike IDS (among others) gung-ho for action. And of course, you're right!

And re Bin Laden, there's no 'of course' about it.

It was only the invasion which forced Bin Laden to flee Afghanistan to Pakistan where US special forces eventually found and killed him.

No invasion., Bin Laden would still be alive in the Afghan mountains plotting more 9/11s

Your hero just promised that we would stop Afghanistan becoming a breeding ground for terrorism. So it must clearly be possible without having to invade the place....

We could not have started without taking out Bin Laden

HYUFD said:

IanB2 said:

HYUFD said:

OldKingCole said:

HYUFD said:

IanB2 said:

Scott_xP said:

When MPs meet in special session of the Commons at 0930 this morning, motion before them is “That this House has considered the situation in Afghanistan.”
Pretty much sums up Britain’s impotence in the current crisis. Maybe they should just leave it there and go back on holiday.
https://twitter.com/afneil/status/1427896249177493504

Will be a fest of hand-wringing and 'if only' and 'coulda shoulda woulda'. The only honest contribution will be any MP who admits we should never have gone there in the first place, preferably coming from someone who said as much at the time (although repentance is always better than HY-head-in-the-sandism).

You expecting a contribution from Corbyn then?

Had we not gone in Bin Laden would of course still be alive, Al Qaeda still in Afghanistan with jihadi training camps and the Taliban would never have lost power in the first place

I was trying to think of who was in Parliament at the material time was, unlike IDS (among others) gung-ho for action. And of course, you're right!

And re Bin Laden, there's no 'of course' about it.

It was only the invasion which forced Bin Laden to flee Afghanistan to Pakistan where US special forces eventually found and killed him.

No invasion., Bin Laden would still be alive in the Afghan mountains plotting more 9/11s

Your hero just promised that we would stop Afghanistan becoming a breeding ground for terrorism. So it must clearly be possible without having to invade the place....

We could not have started without taking out Bin Laden

We did start without that. OBL was killed a decade later.

Scott_xP said:

"The Conservative Party chooses to have a leader incapable of taking important decisions and who is held in contempt by his peers around the West." https://www.newstatesman.com/comment/2021/08/why-tories-are-despair-over-boris-johnson-s-handling-afghanistan-crisis

That is well worth reading - not least because it draws upon the only constituency which Mr Johnson has to worry about: the MPs of the Tory Party. It's not a Leftie critique at all.

[deleted - IanB2 has already dealt with that]

Starmer tells MPs the admission from the Defence Sec that not everyone will be able to get back is "unconscionable" and tells govt to "snap out of complacency". Labour leader being heard. His criticisms of the UK govt felt keenly on the govt benches as well as the opposition ones

https://twitter.com/BethRigby/status/1427923628545433605?s=20

CorrectHorseBattery said:

Possibly Starmer’s best ever speech.

A serious politician.

Am watching on catch-up

RochdalePioneers said:

another_richard said:

RochdalePioneers said:

another_richard said:

RochdalePioneers said:

another_richard said:

RochdalePioneers said:

Scott_xP said:

Pushed on R4, Priti Patel appears to suggest Afghan refugees who reach the UK by boat won’t get special treatment. ‘They will claim asylum as other people claim asylum’ she says.
https://twitter.com/benrileysmith/status/1427894180249055237

On arrival Afghan refugees will be escorted to Stansted and then flown to our new offshore processing centre at Bagram AFB. Their new Taliban camp hosts will keep them safe from the evil Taliban. "It's been a big success" said a smirking Priti Patel yesterday, "the camp has more capacity so big hearted Britain is prepared to take another 50,000 refugees."

Why bother doing that when you've told us that Scotland will take them all.

When do we get Nicola's announcement confirming that ?

Give her the power to do so then. Scotland has an excellent migration policy (https://www.gov.scot/publications/migration-helping-scotland-prosper/) but no powers to implement it as it isn't a devolved matter.

Amazing how virtue signalling so quickly turns into "I'd like to help but I'm sorry I'm not allowed".

"Here is what we want to do. Please give us the powers"
"No. Oh look, you are doing nothing but virtue signal"

We await Nicola's offer.

I already posted it https://www.gov.scot/publications/migration-helping-scotland-prosper/

That's not an offer.

That's an admittance that Scotland has had sod all immigration:

Our experience of migration throughout much of the twentieth century is distinctly different to that of the rest of the UK. Scotland is one of only four European countries to have had a smaller population in 2001 than it had in 1971.

And a request that Scotland can pick and chose who it wants.

RochdalePioneers said:

CorrectHorseBattery said:

Possibly Starmer’s best ever speech.

A serious politician.

Am watching on catch-up

If you set the bar low.....

another_richard said:

RochdalePioneers said:

another_richard said:

RochdalePioneers said:

another_richard said:

RochdalePioneers said:

another_richard said:

RochdalePioneers said:

Scott_xP said:

Pushed on R4, Priti Patel appears to suggest Afghan refugees who reach the UK by boat won’t get special treatment. ‘They will claim asylum as other people claim asylum’ she says.
https://twitter.com/benrileysmith/status/1427894180249055237

On arrival Afghan refugees will be escorted to Stansted and then flown to our new offshore processing centre at Bagram AFB. Their new Taliban camp hosts will keep them safe from the evil Taliban. "It's been a big success" said a smirking Priti Patel yesterday, "the camp has more capacity so big hearted Britain is prepared to take another 50,000 refugees."

Why bother doing that when you've told us that Scotland will take them all.

When do we get Nicola's announcement confirming that ?

Give her the power to do so then. Scotland has an excellent migration policy (https://www.gov.scot/publications/migration-helping-scotland-prosper/) but no powers to implement it as it isn't a devolved matter.

Amazing how virtue signalling so quickly turns into "I'd like to help but I'm sorry I'm not allowed".

"Here is what we want to do. Please give us the powers"
"No. Oh look, you are doing nothing but virtue signal"

We await Nicola's offer.

I already posted it https://www.gov.scot/publications/migration-helping-scotland-prosper/

That's not an offer.

That's an admittance that Scotland has had sod all immigration:

Our experience of migration throughout much of the twentieth century is distinctly different to that of the rest of the UK. Scotland is one of only four European countries to have had a smaller population in 2001 than it had in 1971.

And a request that Scotland can pick and chose who it wants.

Er, the population has been higher than 1971's for quite some time now. It is 2021 on the calendars now.

WhisperingOracle said:

williamglenn said:

kinabalu said:

IanB2 said:

Very pointed intervention from Mrs May, there

Outside of the Commons who I'd be particularly interested in hearing from about Afghanistan is Tony Blair.

"The kaleidoscope has been shaken. The pieces are in flux. Soon they will settle again. Before they do, let us spend twenty years thinking we can reorder this world."

I vividly remember Blair theatrically rushing up the steps of Concorde at the time of this speech, on a whistle-stop global tour to drum up support for the Americans intervening, around October 2001. Britain's reward at the end of twenty years was to be completely ignored during the pullout, which is a vivid preview for how our future economic and military relationship with the US, deprived of a seat at the european table, will pan out too.

What is the European table really worth in defence and foreign policy terms? In reality any European table that excludes the UK isn't a European table.

Dura_Ace said:

HYUFD said:

No invasion., Bin Laden would still be alive in the Afghan mountains plotting more 9/11s

You don't know that.

There were a range of options for dealing with OBL between doing nothing and occupying Afghanistan for 20 years.

True. And a range of ways to view 9/11 from a criminal mass murder to an act of war by the Islamic world on the West. It's not just the practicalities, how you fundamentally view what 9/11 was has an impact on what you think the response should have been.

I now think the decision to go into Afghanistan was a mistake. However, remembering back and being honest, I was actually relieved at the time that the US response was only this and I supported it. I thought there was a fair chance of them going totally OTT and triggering something cataclysmic.

Course, it then turned out that they - and we - didn't restrict ourselves to Afghanistan. The Iraq misadventure followed. I was always against that.

Carnyx said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

HYUFD said:

Starmer has the tone right here have to say, sombre and serious. The Commons was too jovial before.

Now he is reading the list of MPs who served in Afghanistan

Shades of the Norway debate, and others in both wars, when many MPs were serving.

The debate over the fall of Norway is absolutely the last historical analogy which Boris Johnson would want, given his utter eagerness to follow his hero Winston Churchill.

History did Johnson the favour of delivering him a global crisis such that he had opportunity to emulate his hero, with the catch that it didn't gift him any of the skills or character to be able to do so.

williamglenn said:

WhisperingOracle said:

williamglenn said:

kinabalu said:

IanB2 said:

Very pointed intervention from Mrs May, there

Outside of the Commons who I'd be particularly interested in hearing from about Afghanistan is Tony Blair.

"The kaleidoscope has been shaken. The pieces are in flux. Soon they will settle again. Before they do, let us spend twenty years thinking we can reorder this world."

I vividly remember Blair theatrically rushing up the steps of Concorde at the time of this speech, on a whistle-stop global tour to drum up support for the Americans intervening, around October 2001. Britain's reward at the end of twenty years was to be completely ignored during the pullout, which is a vivid preview for how our future economic and military relationship with the US, deprived of a seat at the european table, will pan out too.

What is the European table really worth in defence and foreign policy terms? In reality any European table that excludes the UK isn't a European table.

The UK will only have any independent military weight as part of a European military structure, where it's strongly needed ; next to the US it's an irrelevance, as we can see. The current government has done nothing to build on that.